Qantas, Transaero buy Airbus; Hazy cool to 737RE

AirInsight just posted three pieces about aircraft developments. One concerns the big order from Qantas for A320/A320neos, another is about the Transaero deal for the A320neo and the third is our report referenced in the 777 post below about Steve Hazy’s cool view toward the 737RE.

Boeing continues to work on design definition of the 737RE, with plans to send the program to the Board of Directors this month for approval to launch the airplane.

40 Comments on “Qantas, Transaero buy Airbus; Hazy cool to 737RE

  1. Hazy was somewhat “cool” to the A32XNEO and look how that is turning out to be in terms of sales.

    I think once Boeing fully defines the plane, it will see huge orders – maybe not the magnitude of the A32XNEO orders, but something close.

  2. I think jacobin777 is right. Once we all have a better idea of what the B-737NE will be, we might see some sales movement of it.

    • @OV-099 – We’ve seen Leahy gloat one too many times only to see him “eat crow”. Lets see what happens in the next 6-8 months after formal launch of the B737RE. Maybe then one can see if Mr. Leahy’s prognostications are indeed correct.

      The A32XOEO/NEO which are QF ordered are going to JQ anyway.

      • Well, by the way this thing is going, 6-8 months from now the NEO might have passed 2000 orders comfortably, and in addition to that, the folks in Mobile may have secured an A320 fuselage production and final assembly line. ,-)

        As for QFs “initial” orders going to JQ, I’m not sure if that’s necessarily a good thing for the 737RE.

      • What has Leahy said that will be proven wrong in the next 6-8months by 737RE sales? Did he say the RE wouldn’t sell? No. Did he say the RE would be a bad plane? Negative on that too. He said he believes Airbus have shut Boeing out of some markets which might be true, and that he believes Airbus has the better plane, which might or might not be true, but seeing as he’s Airbus’ salesperson, it’s his job to say such things. He’s certainly sounding more sensible than the 8% better rubbish that Boeing has been trying to feed everyone for the last 6 months.

        Even if the RE does go on to sell very well, using Boeing’s mentality, it won’t indicate it’s the better plane seeing as Boeing say they have the better plane by 8% and yet have been trailing Airbus slightly in the narrowbody marketshare for a while now.

  3. Despite protestions to the contrary It’s apparent the 737RE does not cut the mustard with crucial customers, whilst the exodus away from Boeing shows little sign of slowing production capacity makes it unsustainable for single aisles types, with the airbus backlog some carriers will be forced to chose the RE as a second less preffered option with a promised earlier delivery date.

    • Maybe you missed it, but the B-737NE was not offered to anyone before July 2011, and to date it has only been offered to one customer, AA who ‘ordered’ 100 of them. The design has yet to be finalized and approved by the Boeing Board, which should happen in the next few weeks. The A-320NEO began being offered just 9 months ago, and during the first few months, it was critisized by banks, leasing companies, and other financial organizations. It finally caught on around March or April of this year.

      So you claim that it isn’t ‘cutting it with customers’ puts the B-737NE in exactly the same place in its time line as the A-32X-NEO was during its first few months of being offered.

      “I would not like to gloat but I tend to think we have (shut Boeing out of some markets). It is not just the first mover advantage, I think we also have a better product,” a confident-sounding John Leahy, Airbus sales chief, is quoted as saying by Reuters.”

      What else would you ‘ol John boy to say? He is a car salesman, he just sells bigger cars. He is not going to say anything against his employer. I would expect something similar from Boeing’s salesmen.

      BTW, Boeing is not shut out of the NB-RE market.

  4. Flight International’s Question of the Week of 2-8 August, reported that 48%
    of readers considered the 737RE “a desperate move” by Boeing, while 34%
    called it a “smart move” and 18% said “time will tell.”

    I agree with the majority, with the qualification that if GE had not agreed to
    offer a reduced-fan version of the LEAPX engine, also in desperation, Boeing
    would not have been able to do anything at all, to protect the future of the 737
    program!
    This because, an all new airplane being beyond Boeing’s capability for cost and
    resource reasons and an RE version with the standard LEAPX engine also
    being too costly to produce and, therefore, not being competitive with the
    A320NEO!

    But, I am very optimistic that the 737RE will now get a large portion of the med.-
    range single isle airplane market over the next 10-15 years, because it WILL
    be competItive with the A320NEO AND Airbus cannot handle all the business,
    even if they open a N. Carolina facility!
    All Boeing needs to do now, is get their 737RE act together, FAST!

  5. I guess it is unholy to say Steven Udvar Hazy & McNerney dropped the ball on the A320 NEO.

    Still they both did, publicly, multiple times.

    It might become necessary for Boeing to skip their simple, cheap and fast upgrade scenario on the 737RE. A 66 inch fan might be light, easy and quick. If the airlines dismiss it for the CSeries, NEO, C919 and MS21 it will not only have low costs but also low market share and margins.

    Modifying the aircraft for a 75inch fan might become the better business case afterall.

    • If the airlines dismiss it for the CSeries, NEO, C919 and MS21 it will not only have low costs but also low market share and margins.

      And that’s the crux of the problem for Boeing. Airbus will retain, or in all likelihood, increase their 50+ percent market share in the 130-200 seat NB market, while in a worst case scenario for the 737RE, Boeing will have to share the remaining 45+ percent, or less, with the C-Series, C919 and MS21.

      Putting a 75 inch diameter fan, or larger, on a Boeing narrowbody would have been a straight forward thing to do if Boeing in the1990s had developed their Next Generation NB derived from the 757 airframe instead of the 737 Classics. Although the then new NG wing was larger than the one on the 737 Classics, it was still constrained in its design (i.e. accommodating the same type of MLG as the classics etc.). It has been argued by Boeing that the NG was essentially an all new airplane. If that’s true, was the 737NG really the optimal solution strategically speaking, when Boeing knew all along that the A320 was born to be re-engined with significantly larger diameter engines.

      There was no technical reason why Boeing couldn’t have developed such a NB using the basic 757 fuselage. They would have had to develop an all new wing two thirds the size of the 757-200 wing, with similar development costs to that of the 737NG wing. Such a 757 derived aircraft would have used the forward and aft fuselage of the 757 coupled with an all new centre fuselage and an all new MLG and shorter nose gear; or slightly higher development costs than the NG for better strategic positioning down the road.

  6. EADS considered long & hard on best way forward on single aisles in full knowledge that in any re-launch would be tantermount to a very bad dream to any major competitor, talk of any duopoly all new designs was purely media driven.

    Those with foresight at Boeing identified this scenario, probably two decades ago, importantly to arrest continued customer defection they now identify that any competitor to the NEO demands a more considered engineering response than the one currently proposed, EADS knew this full well.

    Boeing are actively out there selling the concept, in the knowledge that the figuerss don’t quite make for cartwheels on any carriers board room table.

  7. How was Boeing to know Airbus was going to reengine the A-32X in the 1990s? The fact that thousands of B-737NGs have been sold disagrees with your theory. Building a B-757NG was not what the airlines wanted, even if it shrunk the fuselarge. You still have an airplane with a MTOW now around 220,000 lbs and engines with thrust in the low to mid 30,000 class. That airplane would have been much more costly for airlines to operate than the B-737NG. In fact even today the B-737NG still cost less to operate than the competing airplane from the A-32X family. Boeing made the right choice when it launched the B-737NG, it has been their ‘bread ‘n butter’ airplane since it was launched.

  8. OV-099 :
    Well, by the way this thing is going, 6-8 months from now the NEO might have passed 2000 orders comfortably, and in addition to that, the folks in Mobile may have secured an A320 fuselage production and final assembly line. ,-)
    As for QFs “initial” orders going to JQ, I’m not sure if that’s necessarily a good thing for the 737RE.

    We’ll only know what happens when Boeing offers the B77RE in earnest.

    Bryan :
    What has Leahy said that will be proven wrong in the next 6-8months by 737RE sales? Did he say the RE wouldn’t sell? No. Did he say the RE would be a bad plane? Negative on that too. He said he believes Airbus have shut Boeing out of some markets which might be true, and that he believes Airbus has the better plane, which might or might not be true, but seeing as he’s Airbus’ salesperson, it’s his job to say such things. He’s certainly sounding more sensible than the 8% better rubbish that Boeing has been trying to feed everyone for the last 6 months.
    Even if the RE does go on to sell very well, using Boeing’s mentality, it won’t indicate it’s the better plane seeing as Boeing say they have the better plane by 8% and yet have been trailing Airbus slightly in the narrowbody marketshare for a while now.

    Leahy is known to put his foot in front of his mouth a few times…..he talks a big game. While Leahy has been quite important for Airbus in terms of sales, Airbus has sold a lot of planes due to its quality…Leahy couldn’t sell too many of the A345’s or A346’s.

    Regardless, this is about Hazy and his “cool” reception to the B737RE…..I’m sure he’ll be ordering a number of them soon enough…

    • Of course I know he’s put done the open mouth insert mouth thing a couple of times(Chinese copy A330 immediately springs to mind), and I never denied that. However, you still haven’t answered my question. What did he say in the quote you replied to that will be proved wrong in a couple of months?

  9. I believe Boeing’s single aisle strategy went out of the window with the 787 issues and to a lesser extent the 748.
    My view is that GE and Boeing had a single aisle strategy around which the Leap-X formed the cornerstone.After all, why design a new engine without a specific application.
    Probably GE signed a confidentiality or secrecy agreement based on Boeing being unwilling to compromise its 737 production which was of course of great benefit to GE also as exclusive supplier.
    May have been some abject apologies, but Boeing probably left GE high and dry with a new engine and nothing substantial to hang it on until Leahy sold the 32x neo to the Airbus board.

    • Isn’t that just pure speculation on your part? Do you have any evidence of this ‘secret agreement’ between Boeing and GE?

      It seems to me if there was such an agreement than the B-787 would be exclusively powered by the GEnx 1B engines.

      • Rolls Royce leeds the way on the McBoeing delayliner 787 mind some might be right about Boeing and pull a new 737 based on the 787 barrel?

      • KC135TopBoom :Isn’t that just pure speculation on your part? Do you have any evidence of this ‘secret agreement’ between Boeing and GE?
        It seems to me if there was such an agreement than the B-787 would be exclusively powered by the GEnx 1B engines.

        Right! Now how would Andrew have evidence of a secret agreement on hand?! Would make the secret part of it rather spurious, wouldn’t it?

        I believe you have reacted to something known as speculation.

  10. Andrew, leehamnet on June 22, 2011 reported:
    “Airbus may have booked close to 900 orders for the A320neo family by the time the air
    show ends tomorrow, a plane that Boeing says merely reaches “parity” with the 737-800.”

    Therefore, to say:”My view is that GE and Boeing had a single aisle strategy around which
    the Leap-X formed the cornerstone,” is totally unrealistic, because Boeing and GE would
    not have waited until the last minute at the AA Board meeting and risk loosing AA and
    who knows how many others, to Airbus altogether, before coming up in a very great
    hurry with the reduced-fan LEAP-X engine and the only way Boeing could have reacted
    to the A320-NEO at AA!

    Let’s hope that the Boeing Board approves the 737RE program this month and that AA
    will agree to purchase 200 of them, because if they do not, Boeing may well have to
    abandon the medium-range narrow-body aircraft market until the next decade!

  11. KC135TopBoom :Maybe you missed it, but the B-737NE was not offered to anyone before July 2011, and to date it has only been offered to one customer, AA who ‘ordered’ 100 of them. The design has yet to be finalized and approved by the Boeing Board, which should happen in the next few weeks. The A-320NEO began being offered just 9 months ago, and during the first few months, it was critisized by banks, leasing companies, and other financial organizations. It finally caught on around March or April of this year.
    So you claim that it isn’t ‘cutting it with customers’ puts the B-737NE in exactly the same place in its time line as the A-32X-NEO was during its first few months of being offered.
    “I would not like to gloat but I tend to think we have (shut Boeing out of some markets). It is not just the first mover advantage, I think we also have a better product,” a confident-sounding John Leahy, Airbus sales chief, is quoted as saying by Reuters.”
    What else would you ‘ol John boy to say? He is a car salesman, he just sells bigger cars. He is not going to say anything against his employer. I would expect something similar from Boeing’s salesmen.
    BTW, Boeing is not shut out of the NB-RE market.

    Nope, Phil didn’t miss it but it sure seems as Boeing missed the A320 intro and on the way, missed out on a few opportunities!!!!

    Indeed, AA ordered 100 737RE, an aircraft which is officially not yet offerable, wholly dependent on Boeing BOG approval, which is not a 100% given and, should it be given, I believe will not come for at least a couple of months. Not to mention that the definition for this aircraft is far from finished (for a starter, the engine size and associated changes which may be required) and yet without any sort of clear definition, Boeing “knows” that the 737RE will be at least 2% better than the NEO. How they can manage such magical prognostications would astound Nostradamus himself!

    Yup, the 737RE is at the same time line as the NEO was 9 months ago. Oh, are banks, leasing companies and other financial organisations criticizing the 737RE?! I thought it was only one of their potential customers (who incidentally ordered a few examples of the early A350, only to publicly rip Airbus a new opening and forcing them to change the design to the XWB (said moniker being in reference to the Airbus product line and not in reference to the Boeing product line (as some misguided souls believe).
    I might add that the main differences in the timeline comparison are that 9 months ago, Airbus had a much clearer definition of what they were offering, had a clear go ahead to do so and had a much larger market to offer it to.

    Which brings us to Boeing not being shut out of the narrow body-regional market. It is correct that they are not shut out of this market and that is not what mr. Leahy was implying. The markets he was referring to were the Virgin American, IndiGo and the AirAsia markets.

    As for Leahy, yes sir, he is a good ol’ american car salesman who does his job well and has over the years, developed that british trait of winding people up.

    • Whilst I resist rising to any of KC’s innaccuracies or the bait he haphazardly casts around, your endorsement of supporting the accuracy of my earlier post is much appreciated.

      The industry knew full well the opportunities the 320 airframe offered vs the NG as they equally understood the engineering challenges demanded in any NG re-design, hence the consternation when the decision to run with the RE was announced. Boeings drawing office has been busy for some time & carriers & lessors were drip fed RE data & options, to suggest otherwise as KC does is complete nonsense.

      Thanks Aero Ninja

  12. “How was Boeing to know Airbus was going to reengine the A-32X in the 1990s? The fact that thousands of B-737NGs have been sold disagrees with your theory. ”

    It was in the air. Coincidently I did a pretty accurate prognaoses myself 5 yrs ago.
    http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2724857/

    I think Boeing was telling everybody so loudly there was a no problem, there never was & never would be the 737 was the best anyway they started believing themselves.

    • How accurate was your airplane from 5 years ago? Airbus is not building any streched version of the A-320 (your A-320EP). It will not be powered by a CFM-56-9 engine, as it does not exsist. In fact, it looks like the CFM-56-7 will be the last version of the CFM-56 family. Even back 5 years ago there was talk about the CFMI LEAP-X engine, and you didn’t add it to any of you ‘designs’ until about 2009 or 2010.

      BTW, it takes a little more to design any airplane than just sketching one, or cut and paste different external parts in photoshop.

      • I wouldn’t bet against Airbus developing a 3.24 m, 6 frame stretch of the fuselage (4 frames fwd; 2 frames aft) of the A320NEO (A322NEO?) with EIS a couple of years after the EIS of the A319NEO. Seating capacity for this conceptual A322 would be increased by 4 rows of economy class seats at 32″ over that of the A320. A322NEO seating capacity: 12 first class, or business class seats with a pitch of 36″, and 162 economy class seats with a pitch of 32″.

    • The difference, forgive me is simply explained by the NG airframe & it’s inability to accept easy advanced fan technology, Boeing resolved the original turbo fan transition, in the next move forward we have an airframe originaly designed & built in the sixties utilising turbo jet technology that struggles to receive todays larger fan engines, the solution might seem simplistic, reality dictates it’s far from being so.

      Accepting thousands of NG’s have been sold, considerably more 320 series have been ordered & exited production plants in the same time from a source that twenty years ago was not even a mass manufacturer.

      As is often repeated by carriers & those associated with the industry, thats good news for the industry & everybody who utilises aircraft.

  13. KC-TP, I was not talking about a 757NG. By reusing the then existing 757 production infrastructure for the cockpit, forward and aft fuselage, and empennage — similar to how Airbus decided to reuse the cockpit-structure, forward and aft fuselage (but not the centre fuselage for obvious reasons), empennage and horizontal tail plane of the A300-600/A310-200 (both of which having much lower OEWs) on the A330/A340 — Boeing could have developed an aircraft family with about the same OEWs as that of the A319, A320, A321 and using roughly the same type of engines as that of the A32X-series. Also, the main landing and nose gears could have had roughly the same length as the MLG and NLG on the A32X-series. An added bonus point, of course, would have been that Boeing, in fact, would have had the capability to continue to build 757s (at a very low rate post 2005), or even future possible NG versions of the 757.

    I don’t accept the notion that Boeing supposedly didn’t know in the 1990s that Airbus could easily re-engine the A32X-series a decade hence with significantly higher by-pass engines and with significantly larger fan diameters. Arrogance and a lack of long term planning, in addition to giving Southwest Airlines too much influence on the design, were the main culprits in Boeing choosing to go for the “minimum change” 737NG. And remember, this was before McBoeing entered the picture.

    If I had run Boeing from 1989/90 to 2005, I would have chosen this product development strategy: 🙂

    777-200 (1990-1995) with A320 type flight control system and side-sticks. Full FBW.

    787-200, -300, -400 (1993-1999): A320 competitor with 777-200 FBW cockpit and side-sticks.

    797-200, -300, -400 (2003-2010): A330 competitor. Circular cross-section; diameter 226 inches. 777-200 FBW cockpit and side-sticks. Aluminium fuselage, but composite wings, empennage and centre wing box. Airbus type final assembly system with some of the major components assembled outside Puget Sound.

    Further developments:

    787RE (2015)

    757RE (2015)

    767RE (2017): 777-200 FBW cockpit and side-sticks. New composite A310-sized wing and new MLG. Composite empennage and centre wing box. Aircraft optimised for shorter range.

    The beauty of all this is that Boeing would have maximised system commonality and would have taken full advantage of the 757/767 “common” cockpit (structure, not avionics) already paid for. As you probably know, Boeing used a slightly modified 767 Section-41 on the 777 (structure different from aft of the cockpit windows). And post 2015, pilots flying 757REs, 767NGs, 777s, 787REs and 797s would have had the opportunity to benefit from the similar handling qualities provided with fly-by-wire, along with nearly identical cockpits and operating procedures. Additionally, Boeing fly-by-wire qualified pilots would be well positioned for an easy transition between the Boeings narrowbody families (757RE and 787RE) and Boeing’s larger 767NG, 777 and 797 aircraft through straightforward and rapid differential training, as part of a Boeing Airbus-type cross crew qualification concept.

    So, in short, if Boeing’s top management had chosen from 1990 and onwards, to use the best from Airbus’s product development philosophy and lessons learnt, and if they had rejected the “not-invented-here” syndrome, IMO Boeing would have been in far more advantageous situation than the company finds itself today.

  14. Boeing is just a sad mess. Altho it was encouraging to see that they were approaching the 737RE- or- NSA by carefully analyzing the situation, unlike their near absence of any rational thought when they botched the 787 supply chain design, still after all that analysis they yet again made the wrong decision to push for the NSA instead of going from the outset with the RE. They screwed it up this time around because they seemed almost intentionally blind (Airinsight calls it arrogance) not only to their customers’ urgent demands for increased fuel efficiency soon above all else, but to the huge growth in the narrow body mkt that might arise from the opportunities that greater payload/ranges would open for airlines to expand point/point routes and use narrow bodies to replace/supplement on longer range flights larger planes that are much more expensive to operate than narrow bodies.

    To me, this latter point is the main teaching of the neo orders from AA and Qantas. In AA’s case, they intend to use the neos to replace/supplement 757s, 762s and maybe 763s. Qantas’ neos will go to Jetstar, and be used it appears within the huge intra-Asian mkt, perhaps even replacing their 332s. Qantas deferred 6 A380s because they saw the neos as more mkt oriented. B’s old point/point argument turned against them because of their stupidity.

    If I am correct, then, as Keesje has said elsewhere, the REs will always run a distant second to the neos because they will not use the GTF, which is much further along in its development than the LEAP X and at least now appears to be more efficient. It is possible that there is method in B’s madness, if, as I have suggested, the RE is merely a bridge to the NSA with EIS 2023-4. Problem is, B’s dithering has given A an insurmountable lead, and the more neos they can build pere month the fewer REs or NSA’s B will sell.

    • Oddly enough, over in Plane Talking, they are not speaking so glowingly of the A320 purchase by QANTAS. Although it is not an attack so much on the planes as it is on the QANTAS strategy as a whole (giving up Heathrow slots and feeding their pax to “partner”
      airlines.

  15. Sorry Rudy,
    You have missed my point, and if I lacked clarity, then I apologize.
    What I was trying to convey was the point that when GE envisioned the LeapX which was well before 32xneo, it was very possibly on the expectation that Boeing would come up with a new airframe to employ the new engine.

    Frankly the AA strategy was not much less than a desperate effort to recover a lost cause, primarily due to the inability of Boeing to press ahead with what IMHO was a strategy hatched a few years previously because of the problems encountered with the 787 and 748.

  16. On a different note, is Randy loosing it?

    Play the video in this link:

    MAKS 2011: Tinseth bullish on further 787 sales in CIS as Dreamliner makes Russian debut.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/17/360832/maks-tinseth-bullish-on-further-787-sales-in-cis-as-dreamliner-makes-russian.html

    You know, the interesting thing is it’s parked next to our competitors big airplane, and clearly, we’re turning all the heads in our direction. When you look at the 787 with its incredible paint job, with its sleek design, with its gold eye look, I mean it’s a faboulous aircraft, it just looks like an airplane.

    Yeah, right! 😉

    MAKS 2011 – A380 flying display.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKwddyJKguA

  17. Since many years, Hazy want a new NB. Because it’s already time for OEM to produce what market wanted. Hazy have a great vision and a great finess of the knowledge about what the airlines want. Hazy refuse to accept the legendary answer of Airbus and Boeing: we need 20-30 years to pay off the cost of a new airplane. And if you considered this:
    http://agmetalminer.com/2011/08/16/not-so-fast-comac-c919-is-doa-but-boeing-and-airbus-duopoly-dead-anyway/
    the only new plane for the next ten years with great futur development, it’s the C-Series, and the realistic promises of new versions (CS-500, CS-700, CS-900). After the specs and the real engagement of Boeing about the 737RE, Bombardier will have an extraordinary liberty to commit with a unique design for the 150-200 seats…Come on Leahy, the time is coming to tell us: “We had a good laugh but now you mustn’t mess about the business case of CSeries…”

  18. AJ # 23. Point is that even if Q’s strategy is bonkers, they chose the A320X & neo, not the 737. We don’t know eactly why, but my guess is that Leahy was right when he said the A320neo is significantly better that the RE. As A’s neo plan is evolving, I suspect its key aspect is that they think that at 60/month starting in 2016 they will be able to produce all the neos the mkt will need for at least the next 5 years (about 3600). So at that rate, there will not only be no mkt for the RE to speak of, but also a very limited mkt for the NSA, leaving Boeing free to screw up the 777X.

    • I know why q’s gone for the airbus it’ because the B737 have been opening like a can of been’s over the year’s owing to dull drill’s. ask South West.

    • I don’t think it’s all that dire for Boeing. Not good, yes. But this is no disaster. Southwest themselves seem to prove it. Boeing does seem to have some loyalty from many of their customers. Why can only be answered by said customers and Boeing themselves.

      I also do not think Airbus will be creating another line in Mobile. They already have lines in Germany, China and Toulouse. What would one do with all of these lines once all of these planes have been delivered? That means there is still room for Boeing to manoeuvre, albeit with a little less room. It is a bit of a repeat of the 787/A350 scenario with the roles reversed. Boeing has sold 827 787’s and Airbus has sold somewhere around 567 to 574 A350’s. Advantage decidedly in Boeing’s favour but still not too shabby for Airbus.

      I also think the whole dynamic will once again change when Boeing and Airbus do start to develope their new narrow bodies (or single aisles or small airplanes or whatever one wishes to call them).

  19. Aero Ninja, its seems the number of customers that will buy second best aircraft bcause of loyalty seems very, very limitted.

    AA was a Boeing only operator, having a gentleman’s agreement and very close relations with Boeing. Airbus? Remember the A300 crash? Texas is for Boeing. Cold day in hell.

    Boeing misjudged the situation. They counted on loyalty, had some time to evaluate options, no 737NG defections sofar. Airlines will wait for the NSA.

    The rest is history..

  20. keesje :Aero Ninja, its seems the number of customers that will buy second best aircraft bcause of loyalty seems very, very limitted.
    AA was a Boeing only operator, having a gentleman’s agreement and very close relations with Boeing. Airbus? Remember the A300 crash? Texas is for Boeing. Cold day in hell.
    Boeing misjudged the situation. They counted on loyalty, had some time to evaluate options, no 737NG defections sofar. Airlines will wait for the NSA.
    The rest is history..

    You are absolutely right, keesje. Remember US ordering the A-350 Mk. I? Then they kept their order inplace for the Mk. II, Mk. III, Mk. IV, Mk. V, and finally the Mk. VI. US didn’t quit buying Boeing products after the US-427 (B-733) crash in Sept. 1994. They quit buying Boeing products in 2000 when they ordered their first A-320. They filed their first banmkriptcy in 2002, exited in 2003 after dumping all their union and pension comitments on the US taxpayers. They then filed bankruptcy again in 2004, merged with HP, and got financing from Airbus to exit bankruptcy in 2005. I guess Airbus couldn’t afford to loose, not one but two ‘loyal’ customers (US & HP) before the merger was complete. The question that Airbus has never answered was where did they get the money to bail US/HP out? As US emerged from bankruptcy on 24 Sept. 2005, and their merger with HP was approved on 17 Sept. 2005.

    When is Airbus going to force, oops I mean offer the A-380 to US to buy?

    BTW, most airlines never buy the second best airplane (US excepted), they buy the airplane that best suits their business model and mission requirements at the time the order is placed. So all this hooie about the AA, QF, or UN buying A-32X-NEOs is just a business decision based on what best suits those airlines right now. It does not mean DL, UA, WN, or anyone else will follow those airlines. US is currently thinking of ordering up to 24 A-321NEO to replace their 20+ year old B-757s. Isn’t it fun ny how financially challanged airlines like AA, US, QF. Apparently, UN is financially stable.

  21. Airbus and Boeing both finance fleets. E.g. Boeing for bankrupt Air Canada, even the US government finances Boeings for poor bastards like .. Emirates. If you look harder you’ll find many more. GE is in too.

    What do you think Delta / UA will replace its huge 757 fleet with? 737-900RE’s with 66 inch fans, long runways and lower capacity / payload/ cargo capability / comfort / higher noise levels? Unlikely IMO.

    What will be interesting is what savvy Delta/NWA is doing to put some negotiating pressure on Airbus. They are too smart to just give Leahy an easy ride.

  22. “What will be interesting is what savvy Delta/NWA is doing to put some negotiating pressure on Airbus. They are too smart to just give Leahy an easy ride.”

    I guess we have the answer within a week (Dl ordering 100 737-900s) !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.